A Blog About India's Laws and Legal System, its Courts, and its Constitution
this is not a comment on the substance of the argument. only, your piece made me wonder if there is a distinction between dhavan the lawyer and dhavan the public intellectual? we see no problem for criminal lawyers defending ppl they might find distasteful personally and politically. do/should we have different standards for constitutional lawyers? indeed, dhavan himself may claim that he only argues for a position he feels comfortable with and that there was a real change in his beliefs between 1991 and 2008. but at a general level, i wonder what makes an ethical public lawyer - one who makes the best legal case for the client before him, or one who only chooses briefs whose politics he agrees with? can we criticise lawyers for positions they take in the courtroom? of course, the counter-argument is perhaps that senior advocates do in fact have a choice (do they?) and given the stakes involved in public law cases, criticising them for their legal arguments is fair game.
My understanding is that the judgment in Nagaraj case didnot address the issues adequately.It gave some general principles andleft it for the courts to decide on the individual cases.It did not strike down the amendments made in the constitution to protect reservations for SCs/STsin promotions. The reservation inpromotions is not a simple issueand the rules in Centre and states may not be uniform.Till 1997 OBCs also enjoyed reservation in promotions.Now there is a demand to restore this.Arun Shourie addresses this issuein his book and provides a critiqueof the judgments, particularly thejudgment in Thomas case.Given thenumber of cases and the complexnature of rules and their interpretation this question of reservation in promotionsdeserves a indepth study.
Post a Comment